Talk:Armies of Gielinor/Zamorak Returns
Nice format Yojeez--Aloysiusgaul 00:45, November 27, 2009 (UTC) :Thank you ! I have uploaded most of the missions maps. However, I don't have some because I'm a noob at this game and can't get past The Hollows and Port Phasmatys :p If someone could upload it instead, thank you ! --Yojeez 01:01, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Does anyone have a completed map that they can label the territories and then add to the top of the article? Bananas Guy 23:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :What do you mean by completed map ? You mean, the map from where you choose missions. And by completed, you mean where all missions are completed ?--Yojeez 03:09, November 29, 2009 (UTC) ::That is what I meant. I was thinking that it would be good to have some more general information on the campaign included in the article, in addition to the detailed descriptions of the individual missions. Bananas Guy 03:32, November 29, 2009 (UTC) :::Very well. I only have The Fall of Senntisten and The Conquest of Hallowvale left. I'll upload a map as soon as I can. What could we include in the "main information section" ? History about the God Wars ? General functionning of the campaign ? That, I believe we should put in the main AOG article (As it is about campaigns and not the ZAMORAK campaigns specifically.). However, we could include a specific strategy for each units, and the use of the multiple trinkets earned in the missions. (EG The Necromancer is useful is there's a lot of bones in an area).--Yojeez 05:11, November 29, 2009 (UTC) ::::I've added the complete map in. I did not use the original labels from the game because of overlapping text. If needed I could upload the clean, unlabeled version as well. Waki Miko 08:40, November 29, 2009 (UTC) Scoring I started noting down turns / damage / score. Feel free to contribute to this table and see whether we can work out the scoring system. OrbFu 08:24, November 27, 2009 (UTC) :Update: Please sort first by turns (from smallest to largest), then by damage (from smallest to largest)! :Each level most likely has an unknown variable that also affects the score. It's very obvious, and visible by comparing West Swamp and, say, Hallowglade. How we're going to find this variable, I'm not sure. 19118219 Talk 13:59, November 27, 2009 (UTC) ::I suspect that each level has a couple of variables - par turns and par damage or something similar. We need enough data on each level to work out the formula for that level and then I hope the variables will emerge cleanly. OrbFu 00:42, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Definitely non-linear. OrbFu 22:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :Perhaps we could also mark down whether the scores awarded a gold, silver, or bronze medal? Bananas Guy 05:22, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::My guess is you get Gold if your score's >= 1000, Silver if >= 500, Bronze if >= 250.Waki Miko 06:32, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Concur. OrbFu 22:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I Thing thats correct exept that Bronze is >100 Stormpride 08:17, November 29, 2009 (UTC) ::::Also, 100 is the lowest possible score. Bananas Guy 20:34, November 29, 2009 (UTC) :I noticed that on the main AoG page it states that, when counting the damage received by a player, "Skeleton per turn damage and vampyric blood damage do count." Is this true? I just played West Swamp trying to get as low of a score as possible, and ended up with 67 turns and 81 damage, despite the fact that for most of the game I had 30-40 skeletons each losing one hp per turn. Bananas Guy 21:53, November 29, 2009 (UTC) :Taking into consideration the Cave Canem level, it is safe to say that simple formulas involving only Turns Taken and Damage Taken aren't the only factors. At least, not when multiplied by constants, we can see that with the six turn games, there is an 8 score difference between 92 and 91 damage, yet this constant doesn't hold true when substituted into the 47 damage game. This leads me to believe that either: There is another factor (such as win condition Cross VS Damaged Glass) OR damage taken is a function of the turns taken that effects ones score.Anonymous184 07:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC) ::I suspect that you are correct - perhaps the fraction of buildings controlled at the end of the game is another factor? Of course, it is possible that the formula isn't linear, although it doesn't seem to fit with any other basic functions. Bananas Guy 00:35, December 2, 2009 (UTC) :::The four results for Cave Canem in 5 turns are linear: score = round(k - 144/49 dmg) for k somewhere in (1296 + 9/98, 1296 + 51/98), with hints that k = 1296 + 17/49. The results for Cave Canem in 6 turns are clearly non-linear and, regardless, have a steeper gradient. Win mechanism is not a factor for that map. So it's not going to be easy. OrbFu 14:17, December 2, 2009 (UTC) :::::How does this hint at k=1296+(17/49)? I could just as easily imagine k=1296+(2/7), k=1296+(3/7), k=1296+(1/2), etc. TimerootT • C • 01:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC) ::::::When I wrote that there were four values: the range is computed from the outliers, and the other two were exact for the same k. I said it was a hint, not conclusive evidence. See also below. OrbFu 12:53, December 4, 2009 (UTC) ::::Wait a minute. Bananas Guy was commenting that the damage listed didn't include skeleton per turn damage. Maybe Jagex are being really sneaky and taking that into account for the score but not listing it in the end-of-round summary? OrbFu 14:19, December 2, 2009 (UTC) :::::I think that's correct. I counted up the damage and it doesn't include any skeleton decay damage. I think that's why some scores are lower than expected because of decay damage (throwing off the numbers very slightly). Otherwise, I think there should be a linear relationship within the same amount of turns. ~Lil cloud 9 :::::Perhaps we should collect data from a map without using skeletons or vampyric blood, and then test this before trying to compensate for possible effects of skeleton per turn damage? Bananas Guy 06:37, December 3, 2009 (UTC) ::::::(I've removed the charts because they're not very helpful without at least some way of seeing the points. More helpful would be points plus regression line and PMCC). Looking at the data for Cave Canem and ignoring the 9-turn win, which I think has a lot of hidden skeleton damage, the scores are close to score = 1300 - damage * (turns + 1) / 2. It would be good to take another map, probably one of the swamps, and get scores which include no skeletons (so no necromancers either, to be safe!). In fact, if people could mark "extras" used that would be handy. I hypothesise that the formula will be score = k - damage * (turns + t0) / d, possibly with constant t0 or d, possibly with t0 related to d. OrbFu 12:53, December 4, 2009 (UTC) :::::::There's no way it's 1300-something. Just look at East Swamp. Clearly interpolating will give you past 1300. Same thing for cave canem.Lil cloud 9 00:47, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I agree. I think the formula will be something more along the lines of Score = k - s*''Turns'' - d*''Damage''. This is why we need more data, sans Skellys and Vamp Blood - especially on high numbers of turns. That way we can tell whether all the lines (see graphic below) converge at one common point (OrbFu's idea) or if they all are parallel (my idea). If none of the above, then I'd guess something along the lines of Score = a*(t-''Turns'')*(d*-''Damage''); basically a linear combination of the two ideas. TimerootT • C • 01:12, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Lil cloud, you're misreading me. I nowhere claim that k is the same for all maps. That formula was for Cave Canem only; and was derived by observation of the trend lines for turns=5,6,7 (gradients -2.9, -3.45, -4 respectively). It may be a bit low because I don't know how much skeleton damage there is, but in terms of the values in the table above it fits very well: ::::::::: :::::::::Note that the error goes up slightly with the turns, probably because there's more hidden damage. Still, it's a good enough fit to be worth testing the basic non-linear relationship on a dataset without hidden damage. OrbFu 08:12, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I still think it could be a simpler, linear equation. Or, when I look at the weird, steep part on the line of Turn 7, I think it might be some even weirded scoring mechanism. I think we just a need a *TON* of more data points before we can say anything conclusively. I do see, however, how Turn 6 and Turn 7 have a steeped line that Turn 5, and thus it could be your idea. TimerootT • C • 09:42, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Perhaps this will be of some visual help. You can see that both the damage taken and going up in turns has a generally linear trend. Although how well it holds up for large number of turns I don't know... ~lil cloud 9 Regarding Note on Slayer Tower I'm not sure if the note about Hellhounds being most commonly summoned is accurate. I think in my game the most commonly summoned creatures were Greater Demons and Gargoyles. The Hellhounds just get stuck by the edge of the map. Waki Miko 06:36, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :In my game it was almost exclusively greater demons, with very few hellhounds or gargoyles. I think that the "notes" line for the Slayer Tower should be removed - it's probably inaccurate and doesn't add much to the description. Bananas Guy 23:44, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :: I have rewrote the Notes section to only include Greater Demons. I have also tested the starting hellhounds behavior and see that they often get stuck by the sides of the map. I will continue to test.--Yojeez 03:08, November 29, 2009 (UTC) Step-by-step Opening Strategy for The Burgh I've made a step-by-step guide for this map for the first 6 moves that guarantees control of the second portal at the start of Turn 7, making the mission very easy to complete. However, my main concern is that it makes use of some (skippable) rewards from previous missions (i.e. waders, shrine, rangers). It's also in the form of 1 screenshot at the end of each turn since precise movements are needed in the beginning to pull this off; I worry it may take too much space. Should I put it in? Waki Miko 08:25, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify that I did not put it up. I'll dump it here along with the images instead of in the article. Pardon the unsightly formatting; i'm not versed in using wiki formatting.Waki Miko 11:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I don't have any problems with that myself. We need specific strategies for each map. If it takes too much space, we just have to set a tab. About the fact that you use skipable rewards, I believe only saying If you have rangers, etc ... (Like you did in Turn 7 for the gargoyles), and maybe set up another strategy for minimal units. I understand that it is almost impossible to win without rangers, so you could say it too.--Yojeez 14:12, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::The problem with this kind of guide is that there probably isn't a single "best" approach. For that reason I would suggest putting it in the Forum section of the wiki and adding a link. See Arcanists for an example where something similar is done. OrbFu 20:26, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Ok, i've put it up in the Forums and added a link. Waki Miko 09:17, November 29, 2009 (UTC) Map Picture and Tactics section Hello again. I felt the map picture was a little in the way, so I moved it to the right. Do you feel it is nicer now ? I also see someone added the tactics section. It's pretty good, but still needs improvement. Should we put the description of units all together in a resumé, or really put a specific strategy for each unit ? And finally : regarding Cave Canem, it is written that it directly translates to Fear the Dog. I feel this should go in the Trivia section, but before doing this, I need to know in what language Cave Canem is written ! Any one know what it is ? Latin ?--Yojeez 01:45, November 30, 2009 (UTC) I did the tactics section - I didn't want to try and list exhaustive tactics for every unit - just a few pointers for some that non-members may not be used to using. I think that the best that an be done for units is to note strengths and weaknesses - there are too may variables for anything more. But if you can find a way to do it feel fre..... Cave canem is more like "Beware of the dog" than "fear" it :) --Aloysiusgaul 02:22, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :Oops, hadn't seen this. I just posted it right underneath the headline. I agree, it's more like "Beware of the Dog", or "Caution - Dog", or "Hello, I just thought you should know that there is a dog you have good reason to be rather careful of, especially in light of the fact that he's a man-eating, not to mention skeleton-eating, werewolf, he's quite frightening really, but that's awfully dreary of a topic I feel, and I really would love to have you and Meredith come over for some tea sometime, and so please, let's try to get in touch, shall we?"... or something like that. :P And yes, it's Latin. TimerootT • C • 02:40, November 30, 2009 (UTC) The most accurate translation of Cave Canem is Warning: Dog (Or Beware: Dog). It was used by the Romans on their properties (see the pink pages of the french Larousse dictionnary). It is indeed in Latin and is still used sometimes in France and Italy to mark property with dogs in a pedantic manner (Cave is the Warning, Canem is Dog). --4me 04:08, December 6, 2009 (UTC) Late Game AI Tactics In *VERY* late game (I just wanted to see what would happen) the AI begin to be have extremely erratically. I was testing on Port Phasmatys. You know that one portal you start out with? Well, I'd been kicked out of there - stuck with the middle portal. There was only barbarian among the troops there, with 1/5 hp. He would stand on the portal for one turn... but then he would walk onto the the village for one turn. Then he would walk back. Every turn he would move, never gaining health nor earning buildings. He let my ranger walk right up and kill him. Later, I had just conquered the one village near the top-right tower. My simple barbarian fled from the other troops to the castle, which I'd had since almost the start of the game. Many troops came in, but never did a single one attack. I added an image. Finally, the AI would frequently portal camp. I have a hard time thinking that Jagex would tell its AI to portal camp, especially considering they introduced the portal damage for non barbs especially to prevent portal camping. Not only would the AI portal camp, it would portal camp a unit with 5 hp, with not a single barbarian within 20 squares. While perhaps the last one isn't quite as much a glitch, I think the AI is getting seriously confused... maybe that was just because it was 2 A.M. :P TimerootT • C • 10:18, December 6, 2009 (UTC)